About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CNNW 27
CNN 22
FOXNEWS 15
MSNBCW 14
MSNBC 9
KNTV (NBC) 3
CSPAN 2
FBC 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
CNBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WRC 1
WTTG 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 125
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 125 (some duplicates have been removed)
they're troubled by what the united nations ambassador susan rice is telling them. and now the acting cia director has some serious problems as well. president obama pulls out all the stops to keep middle class taxes low, but will congress go along with higher taxes for the rich? plus, a long secret u.s. plan, get this, to explode an atomic bomb on the moon. what were they thinking? i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> today we may be at the tipping point for one of the most important decisions president obama needs to make as he begins his second term. on capitol hill republicans including moderate republicans are sending the president a clear warning, don't nominate susan rice to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. rice is the current u.s. ambassador to the united nations. she spent a second day meeting with senators trying to explain some of her inaccurate comments she made after the september 11th terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. cnn's senior congressional correspondent dana bash is joining us now from capitol hill with the ver
the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she was within the context of that statement. and for this, she has been pillaried for two months. i don't understand it. it has to stop. if it continues, it's going to set up once again a partisan divide in these -- the house and the senate, which congressman rogers and i have tried to overcome and have overcome with some success with respect to the intelligence committees. >> congressman rogers, to my understanding, talking to government officials, is that what susan rice said on "meet the press" five days after the attack and other programs as well, was very similar to what then director petraeus said privately on september 14, that there appeared to be a terrorist element to it but that it appeared first to be spontaneous but it became a terrorist attack, and that that was his belief. so were they not speaking basically in the same way? >>
.s. consulate in benghazi and said if you nominate susan rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that? >> well, first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. a
, and ambassador susan rice come over a two-week period. catherine herridge learned today that neither the director of national intelligence, nor the acting cia director, was responsible for repairing preparing a report that partially blamed the benghazi attack on amateurish youtube anti-islam video. they claim the president obama pressed upon the american people and upon the united nations general assembly. he was push hard to explain what caused them to push the youtube video three days after that attack. the chief said simply he was not at the betray -- petraeus briefing and had nothing to say. there was demonstrable and incurable evidence of their involvement and no evidence of anything other than a terrorist attack. and the administration continued to press its false tale, despite fox news reporting and they reported within 24 hours, u.s. intelligence agencies monomania that the attack was an act of terrorism with ties to al qaeda, but had also identified and located one of the leaders of the attack. despite warnings hours before, state department e-mails reviewed two hours into the attack tha
now. >> ambassador susan rice descends on capitol hill to explain why she blamed the benghazi massacre on a youtube video. lieliz cheney has more as the benghazi cover-up unravels. and more states legalize marijuana. so is an increase in revenue really fueling this movement or is a cultural shift to blame? we'll debate it. and the protests in cairo, the white house refuses to condemn the egyptian president's dictator-like grab. all of that, and a "hannity" shootout with juan williams and more. "hannity" starts right now. tonight as the fiscal cliff drama unfolds on capitol hill, we'll take a step back and look at how we got to this point. namely, how do we become a nation buried under more than $16 trillion debt, why crippling defense cuts, and the largest tax increase will take hold in 35 days because your elected officials don't know how to stop spending money. let me first play a small part of one of the most memorable inaugural addresses of all time. >> my fellow americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> sean: sadly five decades r
was taken out of the final version that we believe was ultimately given to the u.n. ambassador, susan rice. why was that done? who did this? catherine herridge is live on capitol hill. reporter: that's right. congressional horses tell fox news that there were changes to the cia talking points and that language of al qaeda affiliated individuals was replace -- replaced, which have the impact of minimizing or downplaying the role of al qaeda and another group, al sharia come on the consulate on 9/11. there was also testimony this week that the intelligence community to those talking points and went to an interagency process. so that other elements of the intelligence community as well as input and review by the state department, as well as the department of justice, that eventually made its way to ambassador susan rice. no one commissioner who was the final author of this talking point given to ambassador susan rice, who is on the sunday talk show on september 16 and repeated on multiple occasions that meant david was in response to the anti-islam video and that was a demonstration that had
for susan rice. somebody is blatantly lying. we'll get to the bottom of that and much more as "hannity" continues. [ male announcer ] research suggests cell health plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day men's 50+ is a complete multi-vitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. it has more of 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day men's 50+. to support cell health. try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. i took my son fishing every year. we had a great spot, not easy to find, but worth it. but with copd making it hard to breathe, i thought those days might be over. so my doctor prescribed symbicort. it helps significantly improve my lung function starting within five minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. with symbicort, today i'm breathing better.
for susan rice. somebody is blatantly lying. we'll get to the bottom of that we'll get to the bottom of that and much more as "hannnnnnnnnnnn try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. >>> welcome back to hannity. the main street media continue to take their liberal position on the israeli/palestinian conflict. you won't believe it, but watch this. >> living under the threat of rocket attack is search a psych logical trauma. what would you say to those that the rogh rockets rarely do damad the response of the israelis is disproportionate. >> i would say to the ones who have been killed, the 150 who have been wounded, these rockets pair lies an entire ken. there is no school. people cannot go out of their houses, out of their bomb shelters. again, that's an ultimate terly intolerable situation for any country.
, the talking points of susan rice saw in the next 48 hours before she appeared on the sunday talk shows said it was mob violence and video. what do you make of that, tucker? >> this was the big revelation of the day as far as i can tell. it's not clear that susan rice didn't see the original talking points, but the administration conceded today all, but conceded, said, flat-out, we know that al-qaeda was involved, and the term al-qaeda was listed in the origin tell againintelligen and taken out. and the administration says al-qaeda or affiliates classified information, so they had to be scrubbed from what was given to congress. and even if you accept that's a legitimate operating procedure, you have to acknowledge that they've intentionally misled, susan rice-- >> who is they? >> susan rice, but clearly the cia knew this. it's inconceivable that the american ambassador to the united nations was sent out on television with totally incomplete information, with talking points that had been basically scrubbed and having no knowledge of what was originally in them. >> is it clear that susan rice
diane feinstein defendeded u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. that is not my recollection of what he told us september 14th. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if the intent is to assess nate -- >> joining me now is karen finny a political analyst and armstrong williams a conservative columnist and host of the right side with armstrong williams. hello to you both. good to see you. >> hi, alex. >> ladies first with you, karen. you just heard from congressman king. one of his biggest complaints was the white house held back information that this was a terrorist attack claiming this was classified. this is different from the white house's initial defense that they did call it a terrorist attack right away. are they changing their tune? >> well, what i find interesting is the way congressman king and a number of the other republicans have changed their tune from the night before the briefing and oh, what a difference it makes when you actu
the reputation of his united nations ambassador susan rice. much more cautious comments from the president about the david petraeus scandal and the fbi's investigation. we're covering all the angles of his first news conference since the election. and israel retaliates for rocket attacks with deadly strikes and extremist targets. now hamas is warning that the gates of hell have been opened. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> eight days after his re-election, president obama faced reporters in the midst of an unfolding scandal and with a potential economic crisis holding over his head. but he only got riled up when he responded to republican criticism of his united nations ambassador susan rice. more on that coming up. standby. but first, the president's careful responses about the investigation of this former cia chief david petraeus and on negotiations to avoid what's called the fiscal cliff. our white house correspondent jessica yellin was over at the east strip of the white house. you had a chance to speak to the president and ask him about that looming fiscal cliff. >> rep
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
tragedy. but we have an explanation from petraeus for why susan rice said what she said. that is to say they deliberately obscured what they knew in order to avoid giving away too much to our adversaries. now you could say why did you need to do that? i'm not competent to say what advantage was gained there, but i'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up
like yourself talk that this issue is much bigger than susan rice. let me drill down on one area here. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking points. at 4:00 in the afternoon the cia acting director came back and said it was at cia after all. what explains that? >> this stuff is coming from the white house. they are hoping this will go away. i don't happen to be one of the senators she cares to talk about and maybe it's because while opposed to her from her position as ambassador of the united nations and nothing could change my mind on that. bill: based on that answer it appears you are willing to take that answer higher than susan rice with it comes to benghazi. >> this will go down as the biggest coverup in history. they all knew it. they are hoping to have it go beyond the election date which it did. but people are not going to forget it. the administration deliberately covered this and misrepresented what happened in benghazi threatened up in the both of four people. one of whom
some of her biggest critics. ambassador susan rice goes to capitol hill this hour where she will meet with republican lawmakers who have been furious with her initial remarks on libyan terror attack. how will this story go? that is our lead morning. i'm bill hemmer. martha: i'm martha maccallum. about five days after our consulate was attacked on september the 11th we all remember ambassador rice went on all five sunday shows and said the killing of the ambassador and three other americans was actually the result of a spontaneous mob sparking outrage, those comments did, from top gop lawmakers including these three senators, mccain, graham and ayotte. >> don't we all have the responsibility before we go out and talk to the american people on all five sunday morning shows for verifying those facts are true? >> the most basic information about what happened on the night of the attack, and what survivors had to say after the attack is not being provided and we'll talk more about that. bill: so you wonder then whether or not they will get the answers they're looking for. whether or not so
and the recent report that it was intelligence officials who changed susan rice's talking points, not the white house. senator john mccain has come out now to issue this statement on the heels of that saying this latest episode another reason why many of rus so frustrated with and suspicious of the actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. yet again it goes back to the administration. why do you think the president's team has been successful in efforts to stop the controversy the despite this very strong defense of rice that's coming out -- that's coming from the president himself? have they done enough? >> have they done enough to defend susan rice? certainly, i think the president's been very clear about how he feels about susan rice. i think -- and he's been right to defend her. i think some of the attacks that have come from senator mccain and others have been very political in their tone and really not thinking about her job and the talking points she received and also the seriousness of the situation and the timing of when this political fight began, which was r
attempt to nominate susan rice as the next secretary of state, describing her as unqualified for the job after she originally characterized the terror attack as a protest gone wrong. she went on the sunday shows including "meet the press" a couple days after the attack and said that. president obama in his news conference yesterday fired back at senators mccain and graham. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> those republican senators were quick to respond to the president. lindsey graham took to twitter writing, "mr. president, don't think for one minute i don't hol
's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it still was saying it's a spontaneous demonstration? >> i assume dish didn't talk to susan rice, i assume she received information and he was not a part of briefing susan rice. information coming together with a different agencies that were involved and had jurisdiction, giving information to susan rice or anyone else, including our committee. >> i was following that. you answered the question. >> he was the head of the
and law enforcement officials. what was clear was the president's comments on ambassador susan rice is really getting some traction. one republican alleging that, quote, the president misinformed and lied to the american people over the benghazi affair. what was also clear is that the president wants to promote ambassador susan rice. even though she said benghazi was a spontaneous attack when it seemed clear it was terrorism. >> president obama has the gal to float the name of secretary of state, the name of the person who is the actual vehicle used to misinform the person disash dasht american people during this crisis. >> that's a reference to ambassador rice's appearance less than a week after the benghazi attack. the republicans charge that the story was not that strays forward and rice got her information from the cia and other agencies. >> these unfair attacks on ambassador susan rice are simply wrong. she had to rely on the intelligence that was provided. i sat here while colin powell provided the intelligence that he had regarding weapons of mass destruction in iraq. >> the
yesterday defending u.n. ambassador susan rice for her response in the days following the terrorist attack in benghazi in what has now become one of the largest conflicts for his administration, at least on the terrorism front. the president's remarks yesterday raise new questions over the conflicting accounts from the white house about the deadly attack. here's why. on september 11th, four americans were killed -- you know that now -- in our consulate in benghazi, including our ambassador. it was a terrorist attack. on the 16th of september, five days later, ambassador rice went on five sunday shows, including fox news sunday, and suggested that the attack was linked to an internet video. >> best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack, that what happened initially was it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in cairo as a consequence of the video. megyn: when challenged yesterday on the story that ms. rice told several networks, the president said he, the white house, sent her out there with that explanation. >> as i've s
meant for the susan rice appearance recentlyally contain the information that there was evidence of al qaeda's elements involved in this attack. but it appears as if those talking points were altered by the white house or somebody close to the white house to remove any reference to al qaeda's involvement in the attacks. we have yet to discover who has changed the talking points to make the president look for favorable and mislead you, by falsely labeling the 9/11 attacks over spontaneous mob over the video. petraeus has no idea what was provided to rice or who was the author of the talking points that she used that, he had no idea she was going on the talk shows until the white house announced it one or two days before. now, the looming question is, in this coverup, who did it? now, earlier, fox's own katherineererridge explained where the talking points went once they left the cia. >> what we are told about the talking points is that it went through an inter-agency review, including the department of justice, the state department, agencies and that at the end of the day you have this
is is who exexunged the al qaeda terrorism line before it was given to susan rice and she was sent out on those five sunday morning talk shows to say no it was actually a film and a riot gone bad. so as you know there were a couple of senators who say that they have lost faith with susan rice. that she went out and said something misleading. but the president, at his first press conference since being reelected said, please, don't blame her, in fact, he went so far to say she had nothing to do -- knee knew nothing about benghazi. she had nothing to do with benghazi. here he is defending susan rice. >> she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> so. >> okay. then why the heck did you send her out there? she knew nothing about what happened. petraeus was in washington. several other high ranking officials who knew what happened were in washington. if you want us to go after you, then
the talking points given to susan rice obtained all the intelligence the intelligence community had. without going into detail, there were several reports clearly stating that al qaeda affiliated groups were involved in the attack and were very heavily involved in the attack and that did not make it into the talking points, did not make it into the final talking points that were given to congress or to susan rice even though they were in the original talking points. that's a real issue as to why that was taken out. and i just feel that there are still many unanswered questions as to who actually put the final version of the talking points together. that was not answered today. >> congressman king, you have been tough on susan rice based on the fact that she went out on tv and what she said but tonight it sounds like you're saying she wasn't given all the information that did exist within the intelligence community. we've just heard also barbara starr reporting that tomorrow, petraeus is going to say he felt it was a terror attack from the get-go but there were other strains of intelligence.
to be this tone where they want to give susan rice a chance to explain herself, that they're willing to sit down and talk over these issues with her. at a listen to what senator mccain had to say about this over the weekend. >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position, just as she said. but she is not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states. >> now, again, we should point out that she has not been nominated for this post, but there's a lot of speculation that she is the top choice from this white house to replace secretary clinton when she departs. also another name, john kerry on that list. but again, nothing definite on that. but nonetheless, this is something that has been getting a lot of attention, pushback from senator mccain and other republicans, and now that apparent change in tone, john. >> any sense on why we're seeing that change in tone? because the comments really do appear quite different than what they were saying. >> they do. and you know, we've reached out to senator mccain and others and so far we don't hav
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 125 (some duplicates have been removed)